You've got it right

Submitted by Jared (United States), Nov 11, 2006 at 13:24

There is no difference between a taxi driver refusing a passenger with alcohol and a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription on personal religious grounds. Both hold their licenses to do business with the public from the government, local in the case of the taxi driver, state in the case of the pharmacist.

A governmental entity's allowance of a license holder's personal views (they do not have to be religious, but could be moral or ethical in the case of a secularist), to act as a limitation on the public's reliance on the license to obtain the licensed service raises the question of which personal views are to be considered valid or invalid. Inferentially, this also raises the question, if one religion's objections are tolerated in a government licensed occupation, does this rise to level of violation of separation of church and state?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".